Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. On Europe, David Cameron is in danger of making himself a laughing stock (Guardian)

After Michael Gove's intervention, the question of an EU referendum has never been more serious for Cameron, writes Tim Bale.

2. Red Ed’s only ‘Blue Labour’ (Sun)

Ed Miliband’s party already has a tailor-made set of beliefs that tackle head on the alienation and anger behind the UKIP, writes Tom Newton Dunn.

3. Be warned George Osborne: more home owners just really means higher unemployment (Independent)

An increase in people acquiring property cuts labour mobility and the number of new firms, warns David Blanchflower.

4. The Bible Belt is becoming a force for good (Times)

Ignore the caricatures, says Tim Montgomerie. American Christianity is pushing the Republican elite to be more Walmart than Wall Street.

5. We must be ready to leave the EU if we don’t get what we want (Daily Telegraph)

There are pros and cons to staying in Europe – and it’s time to talk about them, says Boris Johnson.

6. Is Labour ready to turn the state upside down in 2015? (Guardian)

The party's policy review suggests fundamental changes to the public sector – to square the circle of cuts and growth, writes John Harris.

7. Cameron must show how arming Syria's opposition would secure a lasting peace (Independent)

Neither arming the rebels nor military strikes can guarantee peace in a country where sectarian, tribal and democratic impulses are all present, writes Douglas Alexander.

8. Lawson is right about the UK and Europe (Financial Times)

A departure need not be a disaster if the terms are negotiated with skill, writes Wolfgang Münchau.

9. Tory Euro shambles lets Labour off hook (Daily Mail)

Labour and the Lib Dems are escaping scrutiny of their own hopelessly out-of-touch positions, says a Daily Mail editorial.

10. Appeasing the Taleban would be a fatal error (Times)

The militants regard peace talks as weakness, writes Anatol Lieven. Pakistan’s new leaders must fight or surrender.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.